If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Are Russian/Ukrain Dev are now Revolutionizing PC gaming?

I think so

I mean with the success of STALKER and Metro and Stalker is one of the most important, innovative and revulitionary game ever. and made by them. Metro while not revulitionary but cool, unique experience. it has best concept in FPS game and new one will improve its gameplay and will become one of the greatest FPS of all time.Now campare to american/western shooters. they mostly are just modern military games where americans as good guys win and bad guys lost predictable story. with done to death MP.Discuss

Certainly there are some interesting things coming from that region... But I wouldn't go as far as saying it's 'revolutionising' the industry.

Also, wasn't there talk of losing some of the uniqueness of Metro in the sequel? Something about the ammunition == money mechanic being lost? Might be the sequel is more in line with "Western" FPS games than the original.

Metro 2033 was a great game, but its power lies less in how revolutionary it was and more how well-crafted it is. Except for the gas-mask mechanic, and maybe bullets as money, nothing it did was particularly unique.

Stalker was a good open-world FPS, but I don't know how revolutionary I consider it. It was more a gradual evolution from shooters. Don't forget that VtmB had first person shooting with limited exploration and sidequests, and Gothic had a similar (perhaps even more robust) ecology system and open world exploration. GTA III had open world exploration with faction fights and shooting, it was just third-person. Deus Ex had a fairly open world and first person shooting. I also wouldn't consider it a huge revolution in gameplay that no one foresaw, because I believe both Fallout 3 and Far Cry 2 were under development when it came out.

Plenty of American games are as revolutionary as Metro or Stalker. Alpha Protocol had a completely unforeseen and amazingly reactive story/conversation system. It wasn't a good game, but it was revolutionary. Even though it's not a shooter, I doubt there's been a more revolutionary game than Dota in the past few years. Bioshock, Bulletstorm, Rage, Borderlands, Deus Ex HR (made in NA), and even Duke Nukem Forever have broken the modern military rut. There have probably been less modern military shooters than shooters that explore another setting released in the last few years.

Saying "discuss" at the end of a post is juvenile and self-aggrandizing, but that's fitting for a post that relies on stereotyping, oversimplification, and hyperbole.

If retail version STALKER is as open world as the alpha version GSC is currently distributing, it is quite innovative even if not reaching the level of being revolutionary. SOC turns out to be quite linear than we expect it to be. But anyway, GSC doesn't have enough capital to continue the development to produce a stable enough version for retail. So that's good enough for me. Remember, although we could get our hands on the game in 2007, the whole project actually started in 2001, and maybe even much earlier. I recalled that when they announced, they already had some game screenshots ready for public media. I remember there were some robots being radio controlled by government military, obviously they dropped in some very early builds.

The whole Eastern Europe has a very powerful scientific workforce, but so does the west of course. Let's see who will win the competition.

The only thing I guess the Eastern Europeans are in lack of, would probably be modern concepts of intellectual property right. I have an interersting story. You all know that Tetris was developed by a Russian computer scientist named Alexey Pajitnov, right? It dated back when the Berlin Wall was still dividing the city of Berlin into two. The first we East Asians came to know this game was through Nintendo, who bought exclusive right and publish the game on NES and Game Boy. Interestingly, Mr. Pajitnov didn't realize that what the right he sold to Nintendo was exclusive publishing right, and he some years later sold publishing right to Sega who subsequently published the game on Genesis!! Nintendo, without surprising anyone, sued both Sega and Mr. Pajitnov (Nintendo would be crazy not to sue) and boringly, Nintendo won and US court ordered a global recall of all Genesis Tetris cartridges. If you happen to pick up a copy of Genesis Tetris, rememeber to preserve it in good condition because it is a very rare game software that worth a lot of money.

It was generally believed that Mr. Pajitnov had no intention to cheat. He simply didn't understand the concept exclusive publishing right. Me neither back while I was enjoying Tetris as a teen.

(But I dont know, I just checked Wiki and it stated that Mr. Pajitnov did not received royalty before 1996. According to an article I read from a game magazine back when I was a teen, it said it was Mr. Pajitnov who was named as one of the defendant in that lawsuit.)

There's a lot of shit russian games too. It's the good ones that come to our attention more. I think there's something in the idea that different cultural traditions combined with a larger market share for the PC in eastern europe is producing a greater variety in PC games. But some of the most interesting games are deeply flawed (e.g. Pathologic), and the ones that achieve mainstream success are invariably the ones closest to mainstream western games.

And what classes a game as revolutionary? Does it simply need to do things differently, or does it need to have a big influence on later games? Deus Ex is a great game that's constantly hailed as revolutionary, but its actual influence on mainstream FPS has been limited. Stalker brought together ideas that had been done in bits and pieces elsewhere into an FPS game strikingly different from previous titles. Games like Far Cry and Op Flash may have had similar gameplay in places, but with totally different structure and atmosphere. Does that mean Stalker wasn't revolutionary, but those previous games were? You can then extend the argument back with the influences of those games, very few ideas are entirely original.

Well, disregarding the revolutionary aspect, it's an exciting time to be sure. We can potentially have access to more foreign games now that there are more options for distribution, which should be important to anyone who loves games because, (and I truly believe this despite the insane profits Call of Duty & Madden rake in) people want variety.

There's a lot of shit russian games too. It's the good ones that come to our attention more. I think there's something in the idea that different cultural traditions combined with a larger market share for the PC in eastern europe is producing a greater variety in PC games. But some of the most interesting games are deeply flawed (e.g. Pathologic), and the ones that achieve mainstream success are invariably the ones closest to mainstream western games.

And what classes a game as revolutionary? Does it simply need to do things differently, or does it need to have a big influence on later games? Deus Ex is a great game that's constantly hailed as revolutionary, but its actual influence on mainstream FPS has been limited. Stalker brought together ideas that had been done in bits and pieces elsewhere into an FPS game strikingly different from previous titles. Games like Far Cry and Op Flash may have had similar gameplay in places, but with totally different structure and atmosphere. Does that mean Stalker wasn't revolutionary, but those previous games were? You can then extend the argument back with the influences of those games, very few ideas are entirely original.

I'm fairly sure that Deus Ex was the first game with a cone of fire where the radius is determined by character skill. That is an incredibly influential concept.